TranceAddict Forums Archive > Other > Political Discussion / Debate Battleground God View this Thread in Original format Radagast Found this on http://www.philosophers.co.uk it's a rather fun game to test the logic of your beliefs. Dont worry, folks, this isn't a site that's out to prove theists or atheists right or wrong, it just analyses the logic. Enter the Battlefield Heres what I got. You have suffered two direct hits and bitten no bullets. Personally I dont think the bullets I bit were particularly bad. Have a go, it's a good laugh, though probably old. Dervish I tried it out it was pretty fun. But alot of the questions I kinda didn't know what they ment exactly as in they could mean a few differnt things. Dunno if that was the point or what tho. Arbiter Unfortunately this test doesn't work very well if your position isn't one of a handful of the pre-conceived positions it was designed for. It just ends up oversimplifying and straw-manning your position. It was entertaining enough, but too simple to be genuinely satisfying. trancaholic I don't get it completely. In the intro it assures you that the test has nothing to do with "right" answers, but only logical consistency of your answers, yet I got "bitten" by two bullets which generally criticised my answers because their logical closure entailed things which are not in line with morals and beliefs of the general population :conf: ierxium I'm clean. :D It was expected since I failed philosophy twice. Just goes to show that the accuracy of the inaccuracy of what is supposed to be correct can be wrong. :conf: Arbiter quote: Originally posted by D.Edge what does the general population's beliefs and morals have to do with logical consistency? Nothing. That's one of the (several) problems with the game. Yoepus real dumb. I bit 3 bullets, and I was trying to be logical too... the questions were so stupid I didn't have an opinion them or what not so I just went with what hsould have been the logical answer according to my previous answers. DrUg_Tit0 quote: You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof. So you've got a choice: Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution. Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses. Hmm, this is kinda stupid. It's more a matter of definition differences between phrases "certain, irrevocable proof" and "overwhelming evidence" than a matter of logical inconsistency. CLICK TO RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

Privacy Statement